CONFIDENTIAL
have kept his card.
As it was, he had entered Hong Kong legally. We could not send him back except by using the Extradition Ordinance which the Chinese were unwilling to use. We had suggested therefore that Shenzhen should agree to send people to give evidence about the case in Hong Kong. We could then arrest the man and bring him to trial. Otherwise I was afraid he would flee from Hong Kong and we could do nothing to stop him.
9.
case.
Mr Fu said Shenzhen were very worried about the If it was not dealt with this would have a bad effect
They would not be able to
on the development of the area.
entrust money to people going to Hong Kong.
In answer to
my questions, he said he thought Shenzhen had decided they could not send people to Hong Kong to give evidence or
launch legal proceedings there. before; there was no precedent. was no precedent.
It had never been done
I said I realised there But we must find a way of establishing
one. These cases were bound to recur and we must have a
If there way of avoiding criminals getting off scot-free. was any way we could help in explaining our legal system we would do so.
10.
Next day, 8 October, Mr Fu Fen said he had discussed the matter with Governor Liu who was very concerned about the effect the case would have on cross-border economic controls.
Surely Was there not some other way we could deal with it? the man had misused his identity card. bound by our own law. I would look again at how he had come in. But there must come a time when the Chinese would use our courts to help keep criminal activities in check.
I told him we were
Lok Ma Chau
11.
I asked Mr Eu Fen on 8 October what was happening about a proper survey of the Lok Ma Chau area so that
He said that planning could go ahead for a new bridge.
/contd.
CONFIDENTIAL